Raids Carried-Out in Accordance with the Istanbul Process on Religious Intolerance, Under the Authority of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (UN.OIC)
ACHTUNG deutsche Leser: Bitte klicken Sie hier, um diesen Artikel auf Deutsch zu lesen. Danke.
by, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH | Vlad Tepes | Translation by, Nash Montana
Because hate on the Internet is rising, the BKA (Bundeskriminalamt, Federal Criminal Police Office) wants to set an example: this morning sixty apartments were searched nationwide. One emphasis is on Bavaria — that’s where the accusations weigh especially heavily.
On Wednesday, in their first nationwide operation to fight against hate crime on the Internet, the police searched the homes of sixty accused in fourteen states, among them eleven suspects from Berlin. The goal is to counter rapidly accelerating “verbal radicalism” and related criminal offenses on the net, the BKA explains in Wiesbaden. The supposed anonymity of the Internet lowers inhibitions about writing hate speech.
25 police precincts worked together at a national level for this raid. Investigations are made based on the suspicion of sedition, related to the use of emblems of organizations that are unconstitutional. The offending language is also connected with utterances against refugees, say the Berlin state police. One investigation from the prosecutor’s office in Kempten assumed particular importance, the BKA announced. According to the information, it concerned a secret Facebook group in which the users glorify national socialism as well as exchanging xenophobic and anti-Semitic content. According to the police, with regard to that group, about forty homes of suspects were searched in thirteen states.
BKA chief: putting a stop to the coarsening of language
“The number of cases of politically right motivated hate criminality on the Internet has also risen in the wake of the European refugee situation,” says BKA chief Holger Münch. “The hate criminality on the net must not poison the social climate.” Attacks on refugee shelters are often the result of radicalization that begins on the Internet. “Therefore we have to put a stop to the coarsening of language, and investigate punishable content on the Internet.” With this operation the citizens also must become more sensitive, the BKA says. Whoever finds hate posts on the Internet should immediately report them.
Federal minister of justice Heiko Maas (SPD, Socialists) welcomed the operation. “The determined action of the administration should make everyone think before they pound on the keys to post on Facebook,” the minister says. “The creators of punishable hate posts are looking at punishments that will hurt. The Internet is not a lawless room. There is no tolerance for punishable offenses on the net.” Maas also warned that the citizens and society as well carry responsibility to counter radical incitement. “Analog as well as digital, it stands: We cannot leave the field to radical haters. The silent majority can no longer be silent.” Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maizière (CDU, Christian Democrats) said: “We have moral principles, online as well as offline.” Verbal violence is not acceptable and it lays the ground for real violence. “Our law also works on the Internet,” says de Maizière.
Just how much this topic has gained focus in political debates is revealed also through earlier remarks made by the Minister of Justice. The trolls have in the meantime become monsters, Maas wrote last November 2015 in the Tagesspiegel. Next to Islamic hate preachers who move about on the net, it is mostly German ‘anger citizens’ who spread hate. And with the rising number of refugees in Germany, the persecution of that group of people has risen. But the persecution of refugees is hard to counter with just Facebook regulations: subsequent to those, posts are only deleted that disparage ethnic groups, sexual orientation or gender. Refugees are not acknowledged as a group.
De Maiziere: Bundesweite Durchsuchungen wegen rechter Hass-Postings im Internet:
Video courtesy of: hubber.me
Stress with the employer
Hate comments on the Internet are punished with relatively high monetary penalties. “Merkel has to be stoned more often,” one user wrote, and had to pay €2000. Someone who posted in a group that was collecting donations for asylum seekers wrote that he would donate a hand grenade and a gas cylinder; he had to pay €7500 as the penalty for sedition. Many states have in the meantime installed so-called “Internet watches”, where hate comments can be reported online.
A person who posts hate speech under his real name should in the meantime fully expect that other users will tell that person’s employer. This is what happened to an employee of Condor Security, who wrote on Facebook that he wanted to plow down refugees with a snow plow. A short while later the company announced that they had let the man go. Another example: A Hermes [similar to FedEx] delivery man commented on the picture of the dead three-year-old Aydan Kurdi at the beach in Lesbos “We are not grieving; we are celebrating it.” He also lost his job. The man was also charged with “denigration of the memory of the deceased.”
by, Redbourn | Misconceptions
What Does The United Nations Cost America?
The U.S. pays 30% of the United Nations annual budget which at last reckoning was eight billion dollars a year!
So the UN costs the US over 2.6 billion dollars a year!
And the headquarters of the United Nations complex is in New York City in the Turtle Bay neighborhood of Manhattan, and that’s prime real estate.
What Does The US Get In Return?
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
The US Gives Aid To Countries That Consistently Vote Against It
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually.
Supposing There Was No United Nations?
It might be possible to make a case for maintaining the Security Council which is presently composed of five permanent members, China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States and another one or two could be added.
But it’s hard to see any need for the others to be permanently hosted in lavish surroundings that cost a fortune, and mostly only bite the hands that feed them..
We live in a hi-tech age where communication is only a mouse-click away and can involve multiple participants who can all see each and hear each other.
So why do they need to be in the same room?
Watch This Trailer
If you think that maybe I’m being a little harsh and have a lingering feeling that shutting down the U.N. would somehow be disastrous then watch this official trailer for a documentary entitled “U.N. Me”, that was released last year.
Ami Horowitz, Director, “U.N. Me” Documentary:
“To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace”—Hebrews 6:6
by, Raymond Ibrahim | Islam Translated
The United Nations, Western governments, media, universities, and talking heads everywhere insist that Palestinians are suffering tremendous abuses from the state of Israel. Conversely, the greatest human rights tragedy of our time—radical Muslim persecution of Christians, including in Palestinian controlled areas—is devotedly ignored.
The facts speak for themselves. Reliable estimates indicate that anywhere from 100-200 million Christians are persecuted every year; one Christian is martyred every five minutes. Approximately 85% of this persecution occurs in Muslim majority nations. In 1900, 20% of the Middle East was Christian. Today, less than 2% is.
In one week in Egypt alone, where my Christian family emigrated, the Muslim Brotherhood launched akristallnacht—attacking, destroying, and/or torching some82 Christian churches (some of which were built in the 5th century, when Egypt was still a Christian-majority nation before the Islamic conquests). Al-Qaeda’s black flag has been raised atop churches. Christians—including priests, women and children—have been attacked, beheaded, and killed.
Nor is such persecution of Christians limited to Egypt. From Morocco in the west to Indonesia in the east and from Central Asia to the north to sub-Saharan Africa to the south; across thousands of miles of lands inhabited by peoples who do not share the same races, languages, cultures, and/or socio-economic conditions, millions of Christians are being persecuted and in the same exact patterns.
Muslim converts to Christianity and Christian evangelists are attacked, imprisoned, and sometimes beheaded; countless churches across the Islamic world are being banned or bombed; Christian women and children are being abducted, enslaved, raped, and/or forced to renounce their faith.
Far from helping these Christian victims, U.S. policies are actually exacerbating their sufferings. Whether in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, or Syria, and under the guise of the U.S.-supported “Arab Spring,” things have gotten dramatically worse for Christians. Indeed, during a recent U.S. congressional hearing, it was revealed that thousands of traumatized Syrian Christians—who, like Iraqi Christians before them are undergoing a mass exodus from their homeland—were asking “Why is America at war with us?”
The answer is that very few Americans have any clue concerning what is happening to their coreligionists.
Few mainstream media speak about the horrific persecution millions of people are experiencing simply because they wish to worship Christ in peace.
There, is of course, a very important reason why the mainstream media ignores radical Muslim persecution of Christians: if the full magnitude of this phenomenon was ever know, many cornerstones of the mainstream media—most prominent among them, that Israel is oppressive to Palestinians—would immediately crumble.
Why? Because radical Muslim persecution of Christians throws a wrench in the media’s otherwise well-oiled narrative that “radical-Muslim-violence-is-a-product-of-Muslim-grievance”—chief among them Israel.
Consider it this way: because the Jewish state is stronger than its Muslim neighbors, the media can easily portray Islamic terrorists as frustrated “underdogs” doing whatever they can to achieve “justice.” No matter how many rockets are shot into Tel Aviv by Hamas and Hezbollah, and no matter how anti-Israeli bloodlust is articulated in radical Islamic terms, the media will present such hostility as ironclad proof that Palestinians under Israel are so oppressed that they have no choice but to resort to terrorism.
However, if radical Muslims get a free pass when their violence is directed against those stronger than them, how does one rationalize away their violence when it is directed against those weaker than them—in this case, millions of indigenous Christians?
The media simply cannot portray radical Muslim persecution of Christians—which in essence and form amount to unprovoked pogroms—as a “land dispute” or a product of “grievance” (if anything, it is the ostracized and persecuted Christian minorities who should have grievances). And because the media cannot articulate radical Islamic attacks on Christians through the “grievance” paradigm that works so well in explaining the Arab-Israeli conflict, their main recourse is not to report on them at all.
In short, Christian persecution is the clearest reflection of radical Islamic supremacism. Vastly outnumbered and politically marginalized Christians simply wish to worship in peace, and yet still are they hounded and attacked, their churches burned and destroyed, their women and children enslaved and raped. These Christians are often identical to their Muslim co-citizens, in race, ethnicity, national identity, culture, and language; there is no political dispute, no land dispute.
The only problem is that they are Christian and so, Islamists believe according to their scriptural exegesis, must be subjugated.
If mainstream media were to report honestly on Christian persecution at the hands of radical Islamists so many bedrocks of the leftist narrative currently dominating political discourse would crumble, first and foremost, the idea that radical Islamic intolerance is a product of “grievances,”and that Israel is responsible for all Jihadist terrorism against it.
by, Brandon Smith | Alt-Market | h/t French News & Flaming FurBalls
As I have confessed in the past, in my early years I found myself active in the Democratic Party and the general liberal methodology. I had no understanding of the concept of the false left/right paradigm. I had no inkling of the dangers of globalism and central banking. I had no concept of decentralization or non-participation. I had never even heard of libertarianism. I knew only that George W. Bush was a criminal (and I was right), but the problem went far deeper than the GOP. I was astoundingly ignorant of the bigger picture.
However, what I did have going for me was an almost violent sense of nonconformity. I hated collectivists, yet I found myself surrounded by them while working within the leftist culture. It was the insanity of self-proclaimed “liberals” that taught me the true nature of the facade of politics. When I realized that the Democrats were essentially the same corrupt entity as the neoconservatives, everything in my life changed.
One aspect of liberalism with which I am now very familiar is political correctness. I didn’t understand it at the time, not until I stepped outside the cultism of it and looked in from a wiser place. It always bothered me, but I couldn’t quite grasp why until later. Then, it hit me like a revelation. Political correctness was not a political ideology. No, it was a religion, a full-fledged spiritual con, a New Age ghetto of frothing mishmash that is sociological voodoo. And the leftists were eating it up like steak night at an all-you-can-eat buffet.
These people were rationally retarded. Every idea they proposed they merely parroted from books and articles they had read. They were like malfunctioning automatons trapped in a cycle of discontented social criticism. Their desperation to invent meaning in the midst of their irrelevant lives made me feel ill. If they could not find a legitimate cause to champion, they would create one out of thin air and defend it relentlessly, regardless of how shallow it truly was.
When I outline my analysis of economic destabilization within the United States or I write about the rise of the police state, I am driven by a fundamental sense of concrete concern. There are indeed real problems in the world, swirling in a storm of obvious factual conflicts. But the warriors of the PC culture don’t see any of it. Rather, they fantasize about injustices that don’t exist, trespasses that are ultimately fictional. They imagine themselves champions of some greater purpose that, in the end, doesn’t matter.
Recently, I read a news story about a “transgendered teen” in Maine. When the boy was in the fifth grade, he decided to dress as a girl and demanded to use the girl’s bathroom at his public school, despite having the biological apparatus of a male. This story was international news, folks! Why? I can’t say, except that the mainstream media have made a point to focus on “gender optional” issues as if they represent some kind of civil rights uprising.
The issue perfectly illustrates the disturbing nature of politically correct culture.
Teachers at the school did not deny the student the use of restroom facilities. In fact, they allowed him to use the teacher’s bathrooms to avoid any confusion. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, on the other hand, had other ideas. It ruled that the school’s refusal to allow theboy to use the girl’s facilities constituted a violation of the State’s anti-discrimination law. The ruling has been heralded as a massive victory for the politically correct narrative.
Now, let me make one thing clear: I could not care less about this boy’s sexual orientation (if he even has one). I do think the very idea that a fifth-grader at about the age of 10 is sexually conscious enough to develop a sense of gender dissuasion is absurd. Children who haven’t even experienced puberty yet, proclaiming they are transgendered? Utter nonsense. I find it far more likely that the student’s PC-obsessed parents influenced him to come to such a decision despite his naivety.
That said, a person’s sexual proclivities are not my concern. In fact, I have no interest whatsoever in the infatuations of any individual. That is a personal matter. I do not judge such people on their attractions. I do, though, judge people on how they handle their infatuations. What happens when someone wears his sexuality on his shoulder like a fashion accessory? Why is that even necessary? Is it not rather mentally backward for any person to base his public persona solely on his carnal compulsions? Do I dance around on the sidewalk bellowing to strangers how much I love the curves of women? Do I require a sociopolitical legal apparatus to vindicate my existence? Do I feel the need to shame gay people into publicly embracing my straight man’s libido? No, I do not.
The PC culture demands that we, as individuals, openly accept the sexual orientations of anyone and everyone; otherwise, we are labeled prejudiced monsters. It is not enough that we object in a logical manner. No, we must fall to our knees and thank the stars for the very existence of gender chameleons.
In the end, the psychological gender position of any particular person does not overrule his biological features. A child with a penis is a boy. Period. He will never be a girl. Ever. Not without surgical aid. And even then, he will never have the ability to give birth, which is the very hallmark of femininity. (Sorry, feminists, but that’s how it goes.) A boy, no matter his mental orientation, does not belong in a girl’s lavatory. The privacy rights of the girls outweigh the gender confusion of the boy. If I were a girl (why not play some gender games since everyone else is), I would beat the living hell out of any boy gallivanting in a dress in a bathroom I was using and make sure he never dared come back. And, by extension, if I were a rather mischievous boy with an aptitude as a peeping tom, why not dress up in a tutu in the hopes of getting a glimpse of the forbidden while being legally protected by the State?
The warped conflicts that arise, though, are not the creation of the child in question. A fifth-grader has no concept of gender rights or political correctness. This issue was a creation of the PC cult and its acolytes. These people don’t actually care about the children they involve in their legal dramas. They exploit them, with every intent to abandon them once they have chiseled their agenda into the gray matter of every American.
What truly motivates these people? Why do they do what they do? I think my experience with leftists makes me a well-positioned observer of the psychology of the culture. Here are the hidden thought processes I have witnessed while dealing directly with the PC army.
The History of Political Correctness (Complete)
One of the unfortunate side effects of religion is that proponents often use it as a means to feel superior to others. I have seen it in Christianity as much as I have seen it in any other belief system. It is the primary reason why I refuse to subscribe to organized and establishment-sanctioned spiritualism. Religion should be a personal experience first and foremost, not an easy way to fit in with the collective. Communing with others who share one’s beliefs should be secondary. Hypocritically, politically correct adherents often criticize Christians for their collectivist elitism while suffering from the same problem themselves.
PC culture allows participants to pretend as though they have some greater understanding of the world, an elevated knowledge of life that makes them superior to the uninitiated. It is important to understand that when a person pursues the methodology of zealotry, he doesn’t do it to make the world a better place; he does it to feel better about his place in the world.
The politically correct are so violent in the assertion of their ideals because they crave the subjugation of the mainstream and a recognition of their “rightness.” They don’t want people to “accept” their beliefs as tolerable. They want people to adore their beliefs as supreme. They want every man, woman and child to reinforce their ideals without question.
The malfunction of this philosophy is that zealots are never finished. They must always find new ways to feel superior to others. So they continuously engineer new taboos and new sins, no matter how ridiculous, so that they can forever look down upon the laymen. Because of this, there will never be an end to PC law. It will go on forever, labeling numerous social interactions and stances as “aberrant” — never satiated and never satisfied.
The young are always searching for ways to feel wiser than the old. This is just the natural way of things, at least in America. Now, I know from ample experience that age does not necessarily denote intelligence. I’ve met plenty of idiotic people who had decades of time to learn from their mistakes but didn’t. But the young, many of whom lack time and struggle, have a terrible tendency to either pretend that they have “seen it all.” Or they pretend that the very atmosphere of the day somehow gives them a greater insight than generations past. The reality is that most of them know very little of import. This attitude comes from a philosophy called “futurism” (popular with the Nazis and the Soviets), which holds that all the beliefs and discoveries of the past mean nothing compared to the beliefs and discoveries of the present. This ideology is alluring to the young, because it gives them a way to feel intellectually dominant over older and more “ignorant” people who are “behind the times.”
Political correctness is basically an appendage of futurism. By labeling elders as social bigots and products of a barbaric era who don’t understand the “lingo” of the PC elite, liberalism draws in and collectivizes the fledgling left. Younger generations are given a cultural avenue toward high priesthood, a right of passage usually reserved for the aged. They get to skip ahead past all the trials and tribulations of life and announce their deep awareness of the so-called greater good.
The values of forefathers past become archaic scrawlings of racist and prejudiced cavemen who could never appreciate the “brilliance” of today’s academia. The inherent freedoms of natural law that have existed since time began are nothing more than obstacles to them, standing in the way of a new and better world where they have somehow outsmarted human instinct and centuries of history.
The very foundation of political correctness is solidified in a desire for the perpetual reinforcement of one’s worldview. PC people need every other person around them to sing the praises of their pure virtues. If I happen to disagree with the idea of gender bending, for instance, as some kind of socially persecuted subculture that needs overt government protection, then I am, of course, labeled a hateful Neanderthal. If I stand in opposition to the concept of victim group status in general, in which the state demands that designated “minorities” be given special treatment regardless of the status of the individual, then I become a racist political fossil ignorant of the bigger picture. You see, if you disagree with PC culture in any way (even if that way is rational), you cannot win. To refute political correctness is to refute the god of the New Age; and to refute their god, even with concrete logic, is blasphemy.
This kind of blind faith in political correctness lends itself entirely to collectivism. The average person begins to think that without a viable appreciation of the philosophy, he may be left out or cast aside. Most people do not know how to function without the approval of others. Therefore, even if a father happens to have a healthy skepticism over the idea of a make-up wearing fifth-grade boy waltzing into his daughter’s school bathroom, he is likely to keep his mouth shut, because to speak out would be a risk to his position within the group, or the community.
The prevalence of PC philosophy is not subtle. I have always found it interesting that political correctness seems to consistently support the demands of the state. Our system smothers children with it in public school, our workplaces are rife with the propaganda for fear of lawsuits and colleges are veritable breeding grounds for the PC oligarchy. Politically correct culture goes out of its way to constantly test others to make sure they are also true believers.
The truth is some discrimination is healthy, and some discord is needed for a society to remain balanced. As long as we don’t allow our disagreements to end in the physical harm of others, then those disagreements are our natural-born right. If you are a racist (this goes for non-whites as well), that’s fine. Just don’t act out your racism in a violent way around me, or I will have to put you down permanently. If you have a distaste of homosexuality (or asexuality, as seems popular nowadays), then whatever, I don’t care. You shouldn’t have to have organizations like GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) in your face attempting to force you to put on a smile for gaydom, coordinate man-on-man heavy-petting protests in your favorite restaurant (Chick-fil-A) while you’re trying to eat a damn sandwich, push boys into the girl’s bathroom, or trying to shut down your favorite TV shows because the stars happen to share your views (“Duck Dynasty”).
Now, PC proponents will argue that the very existence of bigotry does harm to society as a whole, and it must be educated out of individuals. Frankly, I see that kind of utopian fascism as a far greater threat to society as a whole than bigotry ever will be.
Look at where we are today because of the PC nightmare! We have a Nation on the verge of industrial and economic collapse, partly because companies are forced by law or persuaded by government subsidies to hire people with victim group status, even if they are unqualified, while ignoring highly qualified people who just happen to have lighter skin. We have children not even old enough to discover their own inherent character being clinically diagnosed with “gender dysphoria” by a psychiatric community of quacks, which conjured most PC terminology out of thin air. We have boys who are told that they are stunted for acting out their natural male impulses and girls who are told that true femininity is weakness and that they should act more masculine. We have a mainstream culture that coddles and infantilizes young adults, young girls who think promiscuity is the key to womanhood and that motherhood is disgusting (which I find rather ironic), and young men who have no testicular fortitude and no clue how to take charge of their own lives.
The American family unit has been completely destroyed. We have women who are ashamed to set aside careers to raise children because feminism frowns upon “breeders” who bring down the whole gender. We have men who abandon their children and refuse to take responsibility. And we have a weak-minded population addicted to collective affirmation and unwilling to think outside the box for fear of being shunned and shamed. Honestly, I can’t see a single redeeming quality to political correctness other than the fact that those people who espouse it do so loudly and obnoxiously, making it easier for me to identify and avoid them or to take special note of them as an obvious zombie threat in an America swiftly declining into mundane oblivion.